FANDOM


FFWiki forum logo
Forums: Index > The Labyrinth of Time > Site Vandalized, No Help From Administrators

Site Vandalized, No Help From Administrators

April 17 by AJDurai>;3 . Despite the recent addition of two new administrators and the return of a "departed" administrator, the FFWiki has been vandalized yet again by sockpuppets and vandal accounts. Several articles have been removed of content and replaced with nonsensical blurbs. Only after contact was established to Central Wikia did the vandalism stopped. Three of the vandal accounts have been blocked by a Wikia personnel, and more may more follow. AJDurai 14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments >;?

You can't expect them to be onsite 24/7, can you? Jeppo 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. But, this has happened before. I remember Vandalisms lasting hours even back when we had five admins. And I certainly wasn't happy about it then, and I'm still not happy about it now.
Then for some reason the common wisdom here seems to be "the less Admins we have, the better". The better for who? --BlueHighwind 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Plus the privileges awarded to "moderators" is a joke. They should at least have some power of blocking valdals for a certain amount of time unil the admins arrive. That needs to be revised if you ask me. Jeppo 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's out it works: Vandalisms happen. Users revert. Admins block. This is our worst vandalism strike in almost a year, possibly more. Our admins weren't online because they have other things to do.

There is such a thing as too many Bureaucrats. There is such a thing as too many SysOps. There is such a thing as too many rollbackers. A small percentage of users should have rollback rights. A small percentage of users with rollback rights should have SysOp rights and a small percentage of users with SysOp rights should have Bcrat rights.

Personally, I don't think anything's wrong. Users online could handle it, when admins came along, they then ended it. It's how vandalism works.  ILHI 16:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If the need ever arises, we remind users that whenever an admin is not around, a Wikia helper can always be reached via the IRC at #Wikia. Faethinverba volant 17:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, which is exactly what happened. Despite eight administrators, in the end the only reliable party was the Wikia helpers. Doesn't make any difference if the wiki had only one administrator, statistics aside >;3 AJDurai 02:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
@AJDurai: Your arguments are unreasonable to the point of being outright stupid. Like Jeppo says, the active admins cannot be expected to on-site 24/7 because they actually have other things to do. However, contacting an admin, who frequently edits in that time of the day, on their talk page would usually result in them showing up not long after and blocking the vandal. Funny how in a wiki with hundreds of users (since we are apparently being stupid and using purely nominal values in this discussion), not a single one of you did that, except for Geddon (although he only contacted one admin, and it was a long while after the first vandal attack, as I understand it).
But you blaming the administration for not having been on the FFWiki in the time period of the vandal strikes is about as fair as me blaming you for not having contacted me on my talk page, notifying me of the vandal attacks, since coincidentally, had I been contacted on my talk page when the vandals struck on that day, I would have been able to respond within minutes. So if we were to apply your type of faulty, one-sided, narrowminded logic to this situation, the lack of action on the side of the administrators in that particular event was entirely you fault. But we of course won't do that, since using that type of logic would be completely idiotic, and we of course aren't idiots >;3 --Hecko X 04:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, of course not. We are all master of rhetoric, are we not?
Keep in mind that because of the lack of action from the wiki's administration, contact was made to Central Wikia instead. If you indeed wanted to administer the wiki, you would do well to supervise the goings-on rather than await reports from other users. Oh, and don't worry, I just like to keep the administration on its toes - I am rather fond of the well-being of the wiki. Keep on smiling! >;3 AJDurai 04:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Also Hecko, I did leave a message for Faethin when things started to get out of hand.  Armageddon11! Dissicon ff12 Gab2 04:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Damn everyone, relax. You can't expect admins to be around all day. This Wiki is just a hobby for them, same as it is for everybody else here. They don't get paid to do this kind of stuff in the first place, so cut them all some slack. Secondly, all us regualr users can easily revert vandalism by just going to the history of a page and restoring the last non-vandalized edit. You know all those admins and moderators that have rollback rights and/or the power to block vandals? They all had no power at one time or another, and most of them helped fight against vandals before they had neat functions to make everything easier and faster. I don't know what this wiki is coming to, because when I first joined, it didn't matter what kind of user you were, you saw a vandalism, you fixed it. I'm sure that all other users that were active at that time will agree. I personally know that both Faethin and BlueHighwind will back me up on this, because they also reverted vandalism long before they got any title on this wiki. Hell, there are dozens of other users that didn't and still don't have titles who also reverted vandalism they saw, myself included. None of us when crying to an admin to fix it; we dealt with it untile an admin had time to block the vandal. There was no reason why you guys couldn't handle it. No reason at all. DrakemasterDrake 07:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If you indeed wanted to administer the wiki, you would do well to supervise the goings-on rather than await reports from other users.

So the more than a thousand quick responses by the admins in which an immediate action was taken against vandals are void because of this incident? There is no need to be a master of rhetoric to see how utterly void your point is. You fail to judge fairly (as if indeed mattered at all) by ignoring the situations where the admins were quick and effective in dealing with vandals. Faethinverba volant 07:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

<Pocky> "Also Hecko, I did leave a message for Faethin when things started to get out of hand."
<Hecko> "...except for Geddon (although he only contacted one admin, and it was a long while after the first vandal attack, as I understand it)."
Armageddon11(DANIELSJ14) contacts only one admin (Faethin) *pause* (continue whenever you realise who I was talking about, then facepalm and sigh).
@AJDurai: Your arguments are still unreasonable and quite stupid actually.
<AJDurai> "Keep in mind that because of the lack of action from the wiki's administration, contact was made to Central Wikia instead."
And the idea of contacting Diablo or myself, who usually edit (when we do edit) at that time of day, when no administrative action was taken within the first 10 minutes didn't occur to you because..? I mean, you obviously had time to created this thread, why did that strike you as a better idea than contacting one of the wiki's administrators? Like already stated by many, we can't be on the site 24/7 or constantly check up on it, but even so, we will often respond to messages on our respective talk pages rather quickly.
<AJDurai> "If you indeed wanted to administer the wiki, you would do well to supervise the goings-on rather than await reports from other users."
The admins supervise when they have time to supervise. When they don't have time to supervise, they trust the community to contact them whenever there is a problem. So unless you wanted to imply that the community can't be trusted to report when there's a problem when the admins don't react to it themselves within a few minutes, then there was no real point in what you said. None.
<AJDurai> "Oh, and don't worry, I just like to keep the administration on its toes"
How? The administration knows that much of what you say is roughly 70-90% BS, since we go further back in the history of this wiki and have more experience than a majority of the users here. So if you are indeed trying to keep the administration on its toes, then you are failing. Badly. The only thing you are succesful in is creating friction between the administration and the users who believe what you say to be the entire truth, which, as far as I have seen, is rarely (if ever) the case.
<AJDurai> "I am rather fond of the well-being of the wiki."
Then might I suggest not twisting information and presenting half-truthes when complaining about the administration? >;3 --Hecko X 08:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh, HeckoX, you are a wonderful human being. If you think my arguments are rather "stupid", why bother deconstructing and replying to every one of them with your essays of thirty words or more? Bored out of your mind, perhaps?
Oh, DrakeClawfang, we know exactly what to do. Several users such as BlueHighwind and Jeppo were quick in reverting the vandalism. I did my part by reporting to Central Wikia, seeing that since no member of the administration seem to be responding to vandals at the time being - which began around 14:00 hrs (UTC), 17 April for about an hour - an hour is sixty minutes, you see, a very long time. I successfully convinced a Wikia helper to come and help. Therefore, despite my "judgments", the Wiki was well off.
Actually this was only a newsblurb, Faethin, but I was led to being judgmental. I am a simple human being, after all. Oh, and do deconstruct my replies, HeckoX, by all means >;3 AJDurai 09:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding contacting administrators: I'm usually watching RC on this wiki, and get people editing my talkpage on other wikia wikis. I'd expect most adminstrators here edit more than one wiki, they seem to be experienced, and most good wikis are hosted on wikia (and if not, on their own special host and not other wikifarms). So noting them on their talkpage isn't a bad idea. Vandals vandalising my talkpage is the easiest way for me to quickly ban a vandal for me on my own wikis. They vandalise my talkpage, I go to my wiki's RC, ban user/IP and apply a rollback or two.  ILHI 11:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

<AJDubai> If you think my arguments are rather "stupid", why bother deconstructing and replying to every one of them with your essays of thirty words or more?
Because calling an argument stupid without explaining why it is stupid is nothing more than pointless name-calling and does not function as a counter-argument (whereas an explanation does). It's basic common sense, how could you fail to realise this..? Also, by deconstructing the reply, I could deal with each point individually so as to avoid potential confusion about what exact part I was referring to at any given point (since the on-site forum does not have a quote function). --Hecko X 14:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the Forum I opened was a good idea after all..... 1stclasswarrior 14:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Before you carry on, friends and countrymen, take a look at what Deconstructing really is, please. No use asking to "deconstruct" your message, AJ. A common rhetorical fallacy, whenever somebody is losing an argument, is to invite the opponent to carry on and on aimed at creating a sense of insecurity to said opponent. Everybody knows that. Faethinverba volant 16:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I was initially resigned to just reading this, but why are you addressing me AJ? I didn't say a thing about this, in fact I believe it was night and I was asleep when this occurred. Drake Clawfang 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty, looked a bit at what happened. All things considered, I don't see the problem. Users reverted the vandalism, Admins arrived and banned the vandals. Seems to have worked out to me. Drake Clawfang 17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, there was no problem - this was merely an opinion being voiced out at my part. But to think that administrators are taking the time to address my views, justifying their actions (or lack of), and pointing out their brilliance when it wasn't necessary since "everybody knows that", you would have thought they have too much time in their hands! Really, "why'd the admins bother answering AJ; they know he's not gonna stop ranting..." >;3 AJDurai 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, rather than simply voice your discontent with the way the situation was handled, why not make suggestions on how to handle these things better if they happen again? Drake Clawfang 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No suggestions necessary. This is merely a "hobby" to the administrators. I will simply make it my hobby to contact Central Wikia instead, when something of this manner happened again. >:3 AJDurai 03:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Its a hobby to everyone on here. I doubt ANYONE takes the wiki that seriously and they probably should not anyway, hell I only post when i have nothing better to do (which is quite often, anyone on here from Salem Oregon? There is NOTHING to do around here...) Exdeath64 03:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You are correct. Which makes me ponder - if this is a hobby, why the calls for mainspace editing before? Why the restrictions on nominating favored articles? Indeed, why is there such classification on editors if everything is just some pastime? If this notion is already at an end, then I have nothing to say, but if this notion still persist, then perhaps we should rid of the notion so that everyone may enjoy this hobby, hm >:? AJDurai 03:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps because we're no forum site? This has been pointed already, so I'm not wasting my time on explanations. - Henryacores^ 03:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's better described this way: soccer is a hobby, but some people are given attention for being good at it. Same goes for people like ILHI and BlueHighwind in this hobby (though to a much lesser degree, appropriately). Master Conjurer 03:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
But to think that administrators are taking the time to address my views, justifying their actions (or lack of)
A reply takes less than five minutes, regularly of course; besides, it is only natural for a person to address a matter in which, by whatever reason, he was dragged into. And why the mentioning of "justifying" Do you find the reasons presented to you wrong or absurd?
and pointing out their brilliance when it wasn't necessary since "everybody knows that"
Yeah, nice try. But that statement is completely off the point I was making. Anyway, "pointing out their brilliance"? I'm assuming that's because I used the words "rhetorical fallacy". You ought to know better than that. >:3
Really, "why'd the admins bother answering AJ; they know he's not gonna stop ranting...
*sigh* Self-reference in an argument.>:3 Faethinverba volant 06:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What a tragedy.--HavingFun 15:14, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.